1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to pest control, and in particular to an insect trap and method of use.
2. Background of the Invention
Insects can be a major problem when uncontrolled. Although numerous species of benevolent insects exist, others can present a health hazard to humans. For example, mosquitoes spread malaria and yellow fever through their blood sucking feeding habits. Flies may carry disease, germs and infection by landing on food subsequently eaten by humans. Thus it would be desirable to reduce or eliminate these, and other harmful, types of insects from inside structures occupied by humans, and from the environs of same.
It is known that insects such as mosquitoes are attracted by carbon dioxide exhaled by humans, by lactic acid and many other chemicals emitted from humans and their living environment, and even by movement by humans. These chemicals are produced by the human body, by the bacteria on the skin, as well as trace materials human bodies have come in touch with. Mosquitoes may respond to several stimuli at once, and each species of mosquito seems to have particular preferences of stimuli and attractants.
Thus, it would be desirable to provide an insect trap and method which would attract and entrap harmful insects. It would be desirable to position such insect trap within a structure opening, so that carbon dioxide exhaled by humans, lactic acid and other chemicals emitted from humans could emanate outwards from, and insects be attracted into, the insect trap.
Existing Designs
A number of patents have issued for insect traps. Numerous among them have used screen material as insect trap walls. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 1,411,189 was issued to Samuelson for a fly-trapping window screen. This design taught nipples through which flies were expected to crawl, even though the nipples provided minimal clearance. The nipples led into fly-trapping chambers, within which flies accumulated. While this design provided means for entrapping flies, the small nipple passage size may have reduced the number of flies actually trapped. In addition, a large number of entrapment chambers were taught, thus rendering removal of the dead flies difficult.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,305,122 was granted Iwao et al. for a mosquito killing apparatus. One embodiment of this apparatus was taught to be mountable in a window. This design relied on a power supply running an electroshock unit, which would electrify those insects unfortunate enough to come into contact with it. While this mosquito killing apparatus may have been effective against mosquitoes or other insects coming into contact with the electroshock unit, it required a power supply, and suffered from the disadvantages of complexity, and its associated cost.
Cheng was granted U.S. Pat. No. 4,662,103 for a dripping evaporation type of insect luring device. This design taught permeating a cork base with insecticide, which had the quality of being attractive to insects. The smell of the insecticide was taught to disperse into the nearby atmosphere, attract insects, and kill them after they partook of the insecticide. This design suffered from a number of disadvantages. First, insecticide was required to be used as a lure for insects. This required that insecticide be purchased, stocked, and periodically be replaced in the apparatus itself—with the associated labor, cost, and inconvenience. If this task were to be neglected, the trap itself would become ineffectual. Second, poisonous insecticide was required for the operation of this device. When poison is used, the danger always exists that unintended animals or humans may come into contact with the poison, and deleterious health consequences ensue.
Thus, it would be desirable to provide an insect trap and method which does not require an external power source, which is simple, and which does not require poison in its use.